You have access to this content through your organizationâ€™s enterprise subscription to the Aviation Week Intelligence Network (AWIN). Would you like to go there now? Your choice will be remembered until you close your browser.

Center Fuselage Rebuild Could Be F-15C/D Achillesâ€™ Heel

The F-15C may still have an undefeated aerial combat record, but the 38-year-old aircraft could be slated for retirement if the U.S. Air Force decides not to fund a major structural life-extension program.
Air Combat Command (ACC) chief Gen. Mike Holmes says it could cost $30-40 million per aircraft to keep the Eagle soaring beyond the late 2020s, including rebuilding the center fuselage section, among other refurbishments. “We’re probably not going to do that,” he tells ...

REGISTER FOR FREE ACCESS (Valid Email Required)

Register now for free access to "Center Fuselage Rebuild Could Be F-15C/D Achillesâ€™ Heel" and other premium content selected daily by our editors. Your free registration will also allow you to comment on any article posted to Aviationweek.com.

Current magazine subscribers: digital access to articles associated with your subscription are now included at no added charge to you. Simply use your subscriber email to log in to your account (or contact us for assistance in updating your account).

The "missing F-22 tools" story is circulating without any primary source. It seems to be another "A guy I know told me..." kind of tale and not at all certain there is any truth to it. Best I can tell is the misplaced tools, if any, were related to USAF maintenance inventory and not Lockheed's production equipment.

You don't need a stealth platform for the mission of homeland defence. You need a fast, long-range, highly manoeuvrable platform capable of carrying a large payload of high speed missiles. You need the F-15.

The F-15 is a relatively huge radar target, and even early software versions of the -35 found it to be an easy kill. The 3F software enabled F-35A is going operational in September of 2017,two squadrons. If you were an F-15 pilot and offered the opportunity to stay in for another 5-10 years, or a good job flying commercial, what would you do?

The little problem, as much for F-22, F-35 or Silent-Eagle is they'll get busted by size and heat through long-range EO/IRST.
The now obsolete former Rafale's OSF could lock a Mach 1.7 F-22 from 270-285km/front and 430-450km/rear... No idea for the new one as ranges are classified but even with the former one and a Meteor incoming, you'd be in serious troubles while the small size of Rafale, its baked-in RAMs, it radar transparent surfaces (i.e. tail) added to active stealth, anti-IR paint and serious cooling of exhausts, well, Rafale has already proven being able to surpass anything in any competition, even if it didn't ended with a purchase as there were pressures if not threats (by DoS!), bribes etc. Nevertheless, a F-22 gets locked from 240km by S-300/400 while Rafale proved it could fly just over without even being detected. Even F-22 was owned at ATLC2009 on 1st encounter and so were Typhoons, Super-Hornets and all F-1x but also Flankers and it's validated for use from US aircraft carriers as French operate/train from them when their CVN is in maintenance.
It may sound a very odd idea to consider a foreign plane for USAF/USMC/USN but Dassault sees no problem having their gear license-built and if we consider the F/A-XX wish list, it could even be upgraded to such features in the future.
Thus, unless buying a working F-35 with Shenyang J-31 and a successor to F-22 with the new Sukhoi, I really don't see other solution to replace both legacy fighters, useless F-22 and total-failure F-35, not counting that Rafale is cheaper to operate even than F-16.

Because the F-15 is still in production, so the avionics, computers, etc. have all been developed and engineered for that plane and to today's standards. The F-22's avionics., computers are already old when compared directly to today's equipment. ASEA radars are a must in any new plane, whether F-22, F-15, etc. You'd have to re-engineer all of this if you were to open up the 22 mfg. line. Different sized spaces, different components and software that you'd to write to make it work. Can be done, but the F-15 already has it as they're producing it for Israel...

I'm personally not for the F-15, as it would still be an aircraft that is less maneuverable to the Rafael, and 2 separate Russian jets. It would cost you $20 billion dollars for 200 jets with spare parts, etc.

I'd rather open back up the 22 line and re-engineer, etc. and have a TRUE air superiority replacement for the F-15C and spend my dollars there.

Totally agree -- at some point you have to pay to move ahead, even at a premium, instead of paying a lot to stay roughly the same. Let it gradually retire gracefully. As for the homeland defense for the F-15 -- even though the prospects of an air superiority role on our shores seem awfully remote, we surely would want the best plane available. The F-15 is no longer it.

Agreed. The main issue is that our shortsightedness is already penalizing us. When F22 production ended, it was never going to be a matter of simply getting the tooling from storage and flipping a switch. Even though all the companies are still around, they've all since re-tooled and re-directed manpower to other programs. Even if the exact same manpower could be re-allocated back to the F22, it's likely they'd be pulled off of the F35 or another concurrent program. It's zero sum. Train and hire new people? Sure, but then we have that lag as well as risk. Altogether, every option is going to cost a lot of money and take more time than anyone wants to take, each of which are the classic outcome of shortsighted decision making.

It was the guy before him- the unknowable knowns- Rumsfeld who made the decision back in 2004 to reduce the planned buy from around 230 to 180, so as to save money. Lockheed having the F35 contract by then probably helped that descsion. The original end date was around 2009 but was stretched to 2011. Gates didnt so much decide to close production as to not change the previous decision.

Looks like we are going to have to design another fighter for 2030 or before. It has to be fast, mach 2 plus, have a good range for interception and be able to carry a decent internal weaponry, and be able to coordinate unmanned support vehicles. I love the F-15,the f-22 is not bad either, but the f-35 is far to slow and small to fit the bill--even if it worked right!!!
Fighters are mostly regional weapons, with very limited range ( without air refueling ), air-frame life around 6,000 hours.That means you can't fly them all the time if you want to keep using them for 30 years. So you have to keep building them and modifying them. It is a very expensive business. Over a billion dollars a year to keep all the f-15c's flying? I don't want tp here about the f-35.

Buying new F-15s is probably the smart thing to do, given the mission.

And I still wonder if a Super Raptor wouldn't get us the new air dominance fighters we need faster and a lot more affordably than anything else, given a narrow set of goals and tight supervision with clear decision making [avoiding the latter has been the basic problem of failed programs].

The essentials:
- updated parts design for modern manufacturing methods while maintaining the overall envelope
- adoption of current electronics while keeping all the old flight control software [those super old CPUs can be emulated or recreated on custom FPGAs]. Develop an upgrade path for the current crop of F-22s.
- what about engines?
- fast track a super simple Super FB-22 that could also serve as a long range, stealthy AA missile truck

Restarting and relearning production would be very expensive anyway, so better pay for a process based on utilizing modern tools.

Restarting and relearning should not be any more expensive than starting and learning a new system. In fact, I believe that a good argument could be made for less expense.
The weakness of this article is the loss of costs for each argument, leaving the pundits to waste our time reading.

I worked Dev Engineering F22 Rear Horizontal Stabalator for 10 years. The tooling still exists, the fiber placement machines are idle and available and the original Engineers still on plant, Operations personnel still there. The price dropped by about 65% over the life of the contract before being STUPIDLY STOPPED. I'm pretty sure start up would be 40% less than originally planned and I'm pretty sure other original contractors will tell you the same thing.

Restarting would inevitably mean removing resources from concurrent programs. Engineers and technicians that are experienced on the F22 were likely moved to F35, let alone physical factory floor space, etc. Do we move them back to the F22 at the expense of the F35? That's the question for the entire supply chain.

Among the many deals made for the F-35 development financing were arrangements for production in partner nations. I'm sure they'd be happy to pick up the load if we shifted some of the F-35 resources to "F-35B" production.

The USAF is backtracking on retaining the F-15C/D because of the expense, yet you suggest a variety of alternatives that all would cost far more. Many comments below similarly miss the point - where is the money going to come from?

If we are going to retain our military at anywhere near historical levels, we must face the fact that we have to pay for it. We've enjoyed several rounds of tax cuts over the past 30+ years while continuing to spend money as if we had the same revenues coming into the government. That hasn't worked out well. None of these comments suggesting what we should do carries any weight without STEP #1: RAISE TAXES. Otherwise it's all just a bunch of what-if-money-was-no-object fantasies.

Rabbit: tax cuts "make" money, not cost money, due to increased economic activity. GDP in Reagan's last year was double what it was in 1981 despite--and because of--significant tax cuts. 2007 was a record year in tax collection despite--and because of--the Bush tax cuts.

The Bush-era tax cuts took effect in 2001. Tax revenue fell in 2001, then again in 2002, then again in 2003. A peak is measured by what's on either side. Tax revenues in 2007 weren't terribly remarkable. What's remarkable is how they fell in the 2008 recession. It would be wonderful (really wonderful) if we could increase revenue by decreasing taxes, so lots of people believe it. Sadly, the data doesn't support it. The concept is theoretically sound. Eventually, high enough tax rates will start to yield decreased tax revenue, but we're not high enough on the tax rate curve for that effect yet.

If tax revenues are important to you, you might have noted their actual peak was for the most recent fiscal year: 2016 was almost $3.3T, up more than 27% from 2007. FY2017 is projected to be $3.6T.

What utter B.S. Both of them put their "spending" on the nations credit card and ran the deficits way up. Magic thinking like yours has never solved any problem in history. In fact, the economy grew the fastest when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy. It works because the wealthy sit on their money, which hurts the economy. We're the wealthiest country in the world. We can afford to raise taxes to pay for more defense.

Laconic your facts must not have been properly refrigerated - they've gone bad. Kansas vs California. Every state that has slashed tax income has seen tax income get slashed. California has raised taxes and what do you know? Manufacturing is up, and California's GDP is the single biggest reason that the United States GDP has risen. California has greatly increased regulations, and what do you know? The cost of money in the state has fallen because people who lend money like knowing they'll get it back. The exceptionally low borrowing cost in California has meant that the state is now leveraging that into a huge new investment in basic infrastructure repairs and improvements. BtW, Reagan raised taxes after he cut them, and guess why?

Reagan had to raise taxes and still caused the largest increase inbational debt.....until the second Bush who started a war, started an unfounded mandate and lowered taxes. We have just now begun to really feel those costs, but we haven't yet paid for the replacement of several hundred tired Navy ships and several thousand exhausted fixed and rotary wing aircraft; oh yeah, military pilots are tired of nearly constant war and they are also disappearing. This trope of 'less makes more' has been disproved so many times and ways that your repeating it makes one wonder if you believe eliminating all taxes would work even better.

Very simple : just consider building the best jet fighter on market under license. It's also stealth although many still believe it's only a Gen.4.5 aircraft as it was only recently unclassfied it wasn't. The active stealth system is so efficient that you don't need to hide payload in internal bays. They have no problems at accepting a licensed build contract, BTW.
So, what's this wonder? The French Rafale. Note that you simply can scrap any combat jet but A-10 once you have these, it's even feasible to (cheaply) modify USMC LHA/LHDs to operate them as they're STOBAR-OK and they're already validated for USN aircraft carriers.
As they would be license-built, it'd maintain jobs, thus, those who are vampirising tax-payers would surely suffer :grin:

200 F-15 sitting ducks for $6b; or 200 F-35's for $20b that turn that other guy's fighters into sitting ducks.The latest and most realistic war games turned into a turkey shoot for the f-35, vs anything with the term 'legacy' somewhere nearby.

The monster under the bed is entitlement programs. At this time Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid comprise more than half of federal spending, and we're just getting started on the Baby Boom generation's retirement. The unfunded liabilities are enormous - far more than our defense budget for the next three decades at present rates.

Another consequence of the ageing and retiring population is that the tax base to support increases is declining. We can no longer support a pyramid investment system for these entitlements. Something has to give.

If our government is going to meet its basic defense obligations, it will have to get out of the retirement and income security businesses. To do that, the politicians will have to find the will to turn those back to the States and the people where they belong, according to the law spelled out in the U. S. Constitution. It will be politically painful because the present system is very popular with its beneficiaries, who have far more power than the young workers obligated to pay its bills.

China and Europe have their own demographic crises coming with consequences for their military spending, but that's another story.

Err, I have a thought: why not we pay Eisenhower-era taxes? it worked extremely well then, would work extremely well now, unless you're in the top 1%, in which case your tax rates would soar, and you'd end up still being in the top 1%. California has raised taxes, increased regulations, and the poor state has just gotten richer. Who knew?

(Flew Hornets with USMC) One consideration might be to close the gap for the next 10-20 years with the FA-18E/F Super Hornet. Boeing product. Production line is still open. Carries at least 10 AMRAAMs + 2 Sidewinders. Bigger radar than can ever fit in the F-16. AESA capable. Already fielded with IRST. Can act as its own tanker, and is already compatible with USAF strategic tankers (you can fuel two Hornets at a time, vice one Eagle/Falcon/F-35A). More stealthy than the F-15 series. Hornet historically flies circles around Eagles with 35 degree high alpha characteristics. And offers swing role for air to ground, with easily 2 or 3 times the bomb load of an F-16. Can we really afford single mission Air to Air only fighters anymore??? Cheaper than probably all other options mentioned here. Wouldn't be the first time USN and USAF have shared aircraft models...I'm just sayin! Thinking out of the box.

I totally agree, go for the latest Advanced Super Hornet Block III. It would be cheaper and more capable than the F-15C and fine for the ANG Role. Easy to maintain and not very expensive, plus lots of spares with the USN Operating them. They could add Growlers to the mix. Why not?

So instead of upgrading an existing, combat-proven and still capable aircraft the generals would prever to spend 3-times the amount of money to buy fewer unproven aircraft? Way past time that the Air Force tree was culled of the dead wood at the top.

Agree. The service wants new toys instead of moving steadily along with what they have. They tried to build an F-15 replacement in the F-22 but they larded it with so much high-tech claptrap that the aircraft lacked readiness and capability. It's no wonder the program was ended early: it has taken years to make the aircraft they have capable of performing a mission. It would be irresponsible to give this crew more money to take another shot at building the same type aircraft.

Inside the Knowledge Center

Get key insights from Aviation Week Networkâ€™s annual Workforce Study about the state of the A&D industryâ€™s workforce. Learn about the industryâ€™s ability to meet ever-changing customer requirements through the innovation, ingenuity and capability of its people....More

In the simplest terms, airlines need to maximize the value of their aircraft by increasing profits from time in the air while decreasing the costs and time on the ground. Efficient aircraft ground operations are fundamental to meeting customer service expectations...More

In the simplest terms, airlines need to maximize the value of their aircraft by increasing profits from time in the air while decreasing the costs and time on the ground. Efficient aircraft ground operations are fundamental to meeting customer service expectations...More